Hebrew Scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:It is a misconception that the Hebrew Scriptures "Old Testament" in the Judeo-Christian Bible is different from Hebrew scriptures in the Jewish Tanakh. My intent as a Christian is to discuss this misconception respectfully, even if differences in opinion cannot be overcome. That said, I will post my previous discussions with Yahudah that took place at another website so that I can bring everyone up to speed. I will put each of our back and forth with each other in separate posts.

Alter2Ego wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- TRAUMA26100: For your information, the Jewish Tanakh, commonly referred to as the "Jewish Bible," contains the same Hebrew Scriptures aka the "Old Testament" that appears in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The Jewish Bible simply does not contain the Greek Scriptures aka the "New Testament" portion that's in the Bible used by Christians. In other words, Yehudah and I are taking instructions from the exact same Hebrew Scriptures and we are both worshipping the same God, Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh. The difference is that Jews do not accept the New Testament/Greek Scriptures and do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But like I said, we do have the same Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament.

Not quite true here.

If you put a copy of the Tanakh next to the christian bible you will notice many issues (with the christian bible).

The verse numbers are not the same. Why? Because the translations are not the same. Why? Because when you translate Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old English to Modern English, there is a problem. Not only that, the christian bible was designed to tell a story that would jive with the Tanakh. So some of the christian versions of the Tanakh are reworded to make more sense with that story.

I'm not here to argue with Alter2Ego, I think she is a frum christian - which is a good thing.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: I disagree. As stated by one source: "In most cases, when people talk about the Hebrew Bible, they mean the entire Tanakh, and therefore the terms are interchangeable." (Source: Sarah Bronson at eHow)

The Jewish canon is usually associated with the Council of Jamnia around AD 90 and breaks down the Hebrew scriptures into 24 books. All of the information from those 24 books are found in the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament of the Judeo-Christian Bible. In other words, the Jewish Bible and the Judeo-Christian Bible breaks up the same books differently. One of them (the Jewish Bible) breaks its canon into 24 books, while the other (the Judeo-Christian Bible) makes smaller books of the same contents and ends up with 39 books.

The other difference is that the Jewish Bible gives some of the books different names, chapters, and verses. For instance, whereas the Judeo-Christian Bible splits up Kings into two books so that we have 1 Kings and 2 Kings, the Jewish Bible combines them into a single book. The same thing happens with 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel in the Judeo-Christian Bible. In the Jewish Bible, those two books are combined into one book and called "Shemuel."

I'm sure you will agree that breaking up the same contents into different books, chapters, and verses does not in any way affect the contents.

If you put a copy of the Tanakh next to the christian bible you will notice many issues (with the christian bible).

The verse numbers are not the same. Why? Because the translations are not the same. Why? Because when you translate Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old English to Modern English, there is a problem. Not only that, the christian bible was designed to tell a story that would jive with the Tanakh. So some of the christian versions of the Tanakh are reworded to make more sense with that story.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: Chapter numbers and verse numbers are irrelevant. Chapter numbers and verse numbering are later additions to both the Jewish Bible and the Judeo-Christian Bible. In the original writings, there were no chapters and there were no verses. The men that were inspired by Jehovah God to write did not stop in between to break their writings down into chapters and verses.

So simply because the Jewish Bible has different chapters and verses from the exact same inspired writings found in the Judeo-Christian Bible does not mean a thing. It does not have any effect on the contents within the Jewish Bible/Jewish Tanakh vs. the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament that is in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The same info is contained on the printed pages of both Bibles. I gave the example with the books of Kings and Samuel. In other words, if one were to read the entire Jewish Bible and then read the entire Old Testament in the Judeo-Christian Bible, they would get the exact same information.

Yehudah wrote:The verse numbers are not the same. Why? Because the translations are not the same. Why? Because when you translate Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old English to Modern English, there is a problem. Not only that, the christian bible was designed to tell a story that would jive with the Tanakh. So some of the christian versions of the Tanakh are reworded to make more sense with that story.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: But that's not how it was done. The truth is that Hebrew scholars and Greek scholars were used during translation. In other words, the Hebrew (Old Testament) portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible was translated from manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, and the Greek portion (the New Testament) was translated from manuscripts that had been written in Greek.

Yehudah wrote:Why? Because when you translate Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old English to Modern English, there is a problem. Not only that, the christian bible was designed to tell a story that would jive with the Tanakh. So some of the christian versions of the Tanakh are reworded to make more sense with that story.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: I'm sure that's what you've been told by your teachers/Rabbis. But what you've been told is not accurate.

The Hebrew/Old Testament portion of modern Judeo-Christian Bibles was translated from what's known as the Masoretic Text, not from the Jewish Tanakh/Jewish Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which predates the Masoretic Text and is the oldest surviving copy of the Hebrew Scriptures were discovered in caves in 1947. http colon // www dot biblica dot com/bibles/faq/12/

Some of the writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls date as far back to between the 5th Century BCE and the 2nd Century BCE. Their dating predates the Jewish Tanakh/Jewish Bible which was not canonized until 90 AD--centuries after the Hebrew writings called "the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Nobody had touched the Dead Sea Scrolls for all those centuries until they were discovered in clay pots, hidden in caves, in 1947. Jehovah God saw to it that they were protected from corrupt humans for centuries before Jesus Christ even appeared on earth in the 1st Century AD. In other words, the Catholic Church never got its corrupt hands on them.

When the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared against modern versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), it was found that modern Judeo-Christian Bibles accurately reflect what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

To put it simply, your suggestion that there were changes made to the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament in the Judeo-Christian Bible and that this was done "to tell a story that would jive with the Tanakh" does not line up with the facts.

Yehudah wrote:Ehow isn't a good source of info here. The Anshei Kenneses HaGadolah cannonized the Tanakh after the 2nd Temple was built a few hundred years before the common era. Which is why Channukah isn't included, same for other books that were written after.

Just what I said, it's different. And christianity cannonized their bible about 800 years after ours was.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: "Canonizing" simply means to declare something sacred and to then include it as part of the accepted inspired word of God.

DEFINITION OF "CANONIZE":

canonize(kan′ən īz′)

transitive verb canonized, canonizing

1. To declare (a deceased person) to be a saint and entitled to be fully honored as such.

2. To include in the biblical canon.

3. To include in a literary canon.

4. To approve as being within canon law

5. to treat as sacred; glorify(Source: American Heritage Dictionary

Clearly, Almighty God Jehovah does not need humans to declare his inspired writings as being sacred. So why you are making an issue about when the Jews declared the inspired writings as being holy or sacred vs. when the Christians did it is beyond me. It doesn't matter who canonized the Bible first. God does not need us to decide that his writings are sacred. The fact remains both the Jewish Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament that is in the Judeo-Christian Bible have the same contents.

Alter2Ego wrote:The other difference is that the Jewish Bible gives some of the books different names, chapters, and verses. For instance, whereas the Judeo-Christian Bible splits up Kings into two books so that we have 1 Kings and 2 Kings, the Jewish Bible combines them into a single book. The same thing happens with 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel in the Judeo-Christian Bible. In the Jewish Bible, those two books are combined into one book and called "Shemuel."

That's part of the problem, if they were meant to be combined the AKHG would have done so, but they didn't. Christianity likes to change the original and make it their own - which is my point.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: Your point is moot for the simple reason that the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament in the Judeo-Christian Bible is exactly the same as the contents of the Jewish/Tanakh Bible. Splitting Kings and Samuel into two books does not change their contents and has no effect upon one's understanding after reading from the Jewish Bible or the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Breaking up Kings into 1st Kings and 2nd Kings and breaking up Samuel into 1st Samuel and 2nd Samuel is simply canonization preference and amounts to "cosmetics." Not only that, the books are back to back so that one does not lose the flow of what was said in the first part. 2nd Kings comes immediately after the end of 1st Kings, and the same is true with 1st Samuel and 2nd Samuel. They immediately follow each other.

The Jewish Bible broke up the inspired writings into three parts: (1) "the Law," (2) "the Prophets," and (3) "the Writings." The result is that they ended up with 24 books. The Christians took the exact same writings and broke it down as follows: (1) "The Law, or Pentateuch," comes first, and (2) then all the historical books are broken down by Bible writer so that the Judeo-Christian Bible ends up with 39 books.

The men who did the canonization were not inspired of God, so where are you getting the idea that the Jewish canonization is superior to the Christian canonization of the exact same writings?

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest existing copies of the original writings, meaning they predate the canonization of both the Jewish Bible and the canonization of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Those scrolls contain either fragments or complete copies of every book in the Old Testament, except the book of Esther. When comparisons were made of the contents within the Dead Sea Scrolls and the contents within the existing Hebrew portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible, it showed that the contents were exactly the same.

Alter2Ego wrote: I'm sure you will agree that breaking up the same contents into different books, chapters, and verses does not in any way affect the contents.

Um, it does and I do not agree. It's typical for christians to pick a part of a posuk or even a word from a posuk to somehow bring a proof to their beliefs. G-d commanded us not to change ONE LETTER of the Torah, in this case, christianity changed it to suit them - going against G-ds law. But then, christianity doesn't much care about G-d's actual laws if they don't jive with something they've created (paul, etc).

There is an old saying, and it may be old, but it's very true:

In Judaism, G-d defines man. In every other religion, man defines G-d.

Huge difference here.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: Throughout the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures, the ancient Israelites/Jews repeatedly rebelled against Jehovah. They failed to live up to the Mosaic Law by repeatedly getting involved with Baal worship and other forms of idolatry. In fact, no sooner had Moses brought them out from enslavement in Egypt, they were making a golden calf to worship. On top of that, they started complaining about the pots of meat they'd left behind from enslavement in Egypt. They complained they were tired of eating manna rather than be thankful they were being provided for. They complained that Moses brought them out from slavery so they could die of thirst in the wilderness and ended up causing Moses to not enter the promised land, and I could go on and on with this.

In any event, since all Christians are not representative of true worship, those that are not worshipping Jehovah God according to his instructions will have to face the consequences. That's between God and them.

Alter2Ego wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: Chapter numbers and verse numbers are irrelevant. Chapter numbers and verse numbering are later additions to both the Jewish Bible and the Judeo-Christian Bible. In the original writings, there were no chapters and there were no verses. The men that were inspired by Jehovah God to write did not stop in between to break their writings down into chapters and verses.

So simply because the Jewish Bible has different chapters and verses from the exact same inspired writings found in the Judeo-Christian Bible does not mean a thing. It does not have any effect on the contents within the Jewish Bible/Jewish Tanakh vs. the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament that is in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The same info is contained on the printed pages of both Bibles. I gave the example with the books of Kings and Samuel. In other words, if one were to read the entire Jewish Bible and then read the entire Old Testament in the Judeo-Christian Bible, they would get the exact same information.

Beg to differ. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had clarifying the wrong text in the KJ versus my Tanakh. The translations are not correct, neither are the chapters nor the verses.

It's generally the same, but too inconsistent and incorrect for me to bother using.

My mother collects historic documents. I bought her an early 1800's bible from a dealer. We lamented the fact that even though my christian historian claims the bible to be just like mine, we couldn't get over the ending of each Tehillim (Pslam) - which said, ' in jsus name'... which of course is ridiculous considering jsus had nothing to do with Tehillim or the cannon of our Bible.

There are too many inconsistencies to post...

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: The King James Version is one among dozens of English translations of the Bible. To hear you tell it, the KJV is representative of all English translations despite the fact there are more accurate translations available than the KJV.

I use mostly the New World Translation because it corrected the KJV errors by removing 40 verses of fabricated scriptures that appear in the KJV (and in several other English Bibles). Additionally, the New World Translation has removed dozens of translation errors that are in the King James Version. But most important of all, the NWT has returned the Divine name Jehovah to its rightful place in the Bible.

Yehudah wrote:I think it's fantastic that you think your version of the christian bible is authorative and accurate. My apologies to you, but we don't agree. You just can't go through multiple language translations and get an accurate translation from Hebrew to English. It isn't possible.

The last part of your post is fine by you but is a concern to religious Jews. Which 'devine' name are you referring to? The name "jehovah" is a derivation of the tetragramatron, the 4 letter name of G-d that is only supposed to be spoken by the Kohen Gadol during Yom Kippur while performing the avodah. There is no "j" in Judaism, further, while christians are brazen with regards to G-ds' name(s), religious Jews hold It at a higher level and refuse to say or write it. I guess it's because we are held to a higher standard. My personal belief is that it's a lack of respect to G-d, but then, I'm just a stupid Jew who knows less about his faith than most others, especially christians.

Have a great weekend.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: Until you can prove that my translation is inaccurate, you're basically presenting your personal opinions. Where is your evidence that the New World Translation does not accurately present the Hebrew Scriptures? Surely you don't think anybody's opinion is proof of anything. Please quote scriptures from the Jewish Bible that says something entirely different from what's in my English translation.

Yehudah wrote:I think it's fantastic that you think your version of the christian bible is authorative and accurate. My apologies to you, but we don't agree. You just can't go through multiple language translations and get an accurate translation from Hebrew to English. It isn't possible.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: I believe I addressed this before and informed you that the Hebrew portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible was translated by Hebrew scholars from manuscripts that are written in Hebrew. Likewise, the Greek portion ("New Testament") was translated by Greek scholars from manuscripts written in Greek. I also informed you that the Hebrew/Old Testament portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible was compared against the Dead Sea Scrolls and found to accurately reflect what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Yehudah wrote:The last part of your post is fine by you but is a concern to religious Jews. Which 'devine' name are you referring to? The name "jehovah" is a derivation of the tetragramatron, the 4 letter name of G-d that is only supposed to be spoken by the Kohen Gadol during Yom Kippur while performing the avodah. There is no "j" in Judaism, further, while christians are brazen with regards to G-ds' name(s), religious Jews hold It at a higher level and refuse to say or write it. I guess it's because we are held to a higher standard. My personal belief is that it's a lack of respect to G-d, but then, I'm just a stupid Jew who knows less about his faith than most others, especially christians.

Have a great weekend.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: It's ironical that you are arguing against the "J" in Jehovah God's name, while you use "J" in the word "Judaism."

During translation, names are given the English equivalent. We pronounce them in our own language and don't try to imitate the original pronunciation. For instance the name "Jeremiah" would appear as "Yirmeyahu" in Hebrew. Similarly, "Isaiah" would likely be pronounced "Yeshayahu" in Hebrew. Even scholars who are aware of the original pronunciation of these names use the modern pronunciation, not the ancient pronunciation.

The name "Jehovah" is the most commonly accepted English translation of the Divine name, which is written with four Hebrew letters YHWH. That's why I will continue to use it out of honor and respect towards Almighty God Jehovah.

Yehudah wrote:The last part of your post is fine by you but is a concern to religious Jews. Which 'devine' name are you referring to? The name "jehovah" is a derivation of the tetragramatron, the 4 letter name of G-d that is only supposed to be spoken by the Kohen Gadol during Yom Kippur while performing the avodah. There is no "j" in Judaism, further, while christians are brazen with regards to G-ds' name(s), religious Jews hold It at a higher level and refuse to say or write it. I guess it's because we are held to a higher standard. My personal belief is that it's a lack of respect to G-d, but then, I'm just a stupid Jew who knows less about his faith than most others, especially christians.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: If Jews refuse to pronounce the Divine name, that's on them. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say the Divine name is not to be pronounced. Truth be told, the direct opposite is said therein. It specifically says that God wants his name declared throughout the earth. When the Egyptian pharaoh refused to set the enslaved ancient Israelites free, God instructed Moses to tell pharaoh the following, and keep your eyes on the words that are bolded within the quotation.

"But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth."(Exodus 9:16)

Let me ask you a few questions, Yehudah. And I want you to think logically before you reply.

QUESTION #1 to YEHUDAH: How is Jehovah God's name supposed to be declared in all the earth unless it is audibly uttered around the globe for all to hear it?

QUESTION #2 to YEHUDAH: Why do you suppose Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh/Yehovah had his name written almost 2,000 times in the Hebrew portion of the Bible, if he didn't want his name known and uttered?

QUESTION #3 to YEHUDAH: If Almighty God did not want his personal name uttered, don't you think he would have specifically stated that on even one page of the Bible?

QUESTION #4 to YEHUDAH: Don't you find it strange that there is no such instruction found anywhere in the Bible, which is Jehovah's written instructions to all mankind?

QUESTION #5 to YEHUDAH: Who are you going to obey? Your Creator? or will you continue to put traditions of sinful men/Rabbis ahead of what Jehovah God who says he wants his name declared throughout the earth?

Yehudah wrote: The fact remains both the Jewish Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament that is in the Judeo-Christian Bible have the same contents. [/color][/size]

Not quite.

Let's take an example from Ezekiel this following passage many Xtians claims refers to "Satan" (in Xtianese, "satan" is a proper name even though it clearly is not...

1. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 2. "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: So said the Lord God: Because your heart is proud, and you said, 'I am a god, I have sat in a seat of God, in the heart of the seas,' but you are a man and not a god, yet you have made your heart like the heart of God. 3. Behold, are you wiser than Daniel, that no secret is hidden from you? 4. With your wisdom and with your understanding did you acquire wealth for yourself, and gather gold and silver in your treasurehouses? 5. With your great wisdom in your commerce did you increase your wealth, that your heart became haughty with your wealth? 6. Therefore, so said the Lord God: Because you made your heart like the heart of God,

Here in the Jewish bible, the King of Tyre is being asked a series of questions.

Compare with the Xtian version:

Ezekiel 28:1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Ezekiel 28:3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

Ezekiel 28:5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:

Ezekiel 28:6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;

Here, these questions become statements. How is this possible? Especially when one follows the Narrative .

Here is another:Isaiah 9:5....The Tanach reads:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

The xtian Version (verse 6 in their version) reads:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

see the subtle changes?

Last edited by Arik on Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yehudah wrote: I also informed you that the Hebrew/Old Testament portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible was compared against the Dead Sea Scrolls and found to accurately reflect what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. [/color]

I am not sure exactly what you think this proves. I would like every reader to consider this question: what would YOU do with an old holy book (a Bible, a Prayerbook, etc) that has deteriorated to such a degree that it has become unusable and is now beyond repair? The christians among us may well just put such a book in the garbage, but Jews treat texts containing the Names of God with far greater respect than that; the Tetragrammaton, in particular, must not be erased and should certainly not be thrown out with the trash.

The way that such scrolls/books are disposed of today is not the same as it was in bygone ages. Today such scrolls/books are ceremonially buried - Torah scrolls are accorded their own "graves" complete with headstones, while other scrolls/books are placed in the grave of a highly respected person (it's considered a great honour to be buried together with old scrolls/books that can no longer be used).

But in the past old scrolls/books were not buried; they were "hidden away" (Hebrew גְּנוּזִים g'nuzim) in a repository − often in an annex or the attic of a beit k'neset − where they would not be used but could be preserved in a respectful manner. The same was done with scrolls/books that were found to be defective − that is, found to contain scribal errors that could not be repaired and which rendered them unusable for ceremonial purposes. Such a repository was called a גְּנִיזָה g'nizah, from the verb גנז to hide away (see Wikipedia's article about the famous Cairo G'nizah).

So to summarise: a g'nizah might be expected to contain two different types of documents:

1. documents that were very old (at the time of being stored away) and had deteriorated to such a degree that they were no longer usable; and

2. documents that were not that old, but which had been found to contain scribal errors that could not be rectified and so were deemed unusable for ceremonial readings.Now let's consider the documents found at Ḥirbet Kumr'an. They fall into two main classes − some which were very, very old even before they were consigned to the Kumr'an repository (because they have literally disintegrated into millions of tiny fragments), while others were not so old and have survived intact to a greater or less degree.... but are found in every case to contain divergencies from the Masoretic Text; exactly what one would expect in a g'nizah.

Interestingly, the caves overlooking the Dead Sea are the only such repository in Eretz Yisraél that has ever been found, and there is speculation that their contents represent the g'nizah of the Temple itself. But whatever the site was, if it was a g'nizah we should be very wary of accepting any divergent reading found in its documents: just because they're old doesn't mean they're authoritative, and the very fact that they could have been sent to g'nizah may, in fact, mean the exact opposite.

Yehudah wrote:The last part of your post is fine by you but is a concern to religious Jews. Which 'devine' name are you referring to? The name "jehovah" is a derivation of the tetragramatron, the 4 letter name of G-d that is only supposed to be spoken by the Kohen Gadol during Yom Kippur while performing the avodah. There is no "j" in Judaism, further, while christians are brazen with regards to G-ds' name(s), religious Jews hold It at a higher level and refuse to say or write it. I guess it's because we are held to a higher standard. My personal belief is that it's a lack of respect to G-d, but then, I'm just a stupid Jew who knows less about his faith than most others, especially christians.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: If Jews refuse to pronounce the Divine name, that's on them. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say the Divine name is not to be pronounced. Truth be told, the direct opposite is said therein. It specifically says that God wants his name declared throughout the earth. When the Egyptian pharaoh refused to set the enslaved ancient Israelites free, God instructed Moses to tell pharaoh the following, and keep your eyes on the words that are bolded within the quotation.

"But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth."(Exodus 9:16)

Let me ask you a few questions, Yehudah. And I want you to think logically before you reply.

QUESTION #1 to YEHUDAH: How is Jehovah God's name supposed to be declared in all the earth unless it is audibly uttered around the globe for all to hear it?

QUESTION #2 to YEHUDAH: Why do you suppose Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh/Yehovah had his name written almost 2,000 times in the Hebrew portion of the Bible, if he didn't want his name known and uttered?

QUESTION #3 to YEHUDAH: If Almighty God did not want his personal name uttered, don't you think he would have specifically stated that on even one page of the Bible?

QUESTION #4 to YEHUDAH: Don't you find it strange that there is no such instruction found anywhere in the Bible, which is Jehovah's written instructions to all mankind?

QUESTION #5 to YEHUDAH: Who are you going to obey? Your Creator? or will you continue to put traditions of sinful men/Rabbis ahead of what Jehovah God who says he wants his name declared throughout the earth?

Since your questions are directed to yehudah, I would prefer normally to let him answer for himself although The word "Jehovah" is in fact a meaningless word that doesn;t have any meaning whatsoever in Hebrew. Your argument that he uses the term "Jew" spelled with a "J" is apples and oranges. I normally use the Term "Jew" rather than the term "yehuti" or B'nei Yisroel Simply because it would be easier for non Hebrew speaking gentiles to understand, otherwise every thread we would have to stop and explain just what we were talking about.The correct pronunciation of G-d's name is Adonai.Out of respect, I normally just type G-d or "HaShem" ( The Name)Further please respect our rules of the forum, your last statement claiming our rabbis are "sinful" without given any reason for doing so other than because you "think" by speaking disrespectful of them that it strengthens your argument. It is a violation of the Torah to disrespect a Torah scholar so kindly show respect.

Alter2Ego wrote:The fact remains both the Jewish Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament that is in the Judeo-Christian Bible have the same contents.

Not quite.

Let's take an example from Ezekiel this following passage many Xtians claims refers to "Satan" (in Xtianese, "satan" is a proper name even though it clearly is not...

1. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 2. "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: So said the Lord God: Because your heart is proud, and you said, 'I am a god, I have sat in a seat of God, in the heart of the seas,' but you are a man and not a god, yet you have made your heart like the heart of God.3. Behold, are you wiser than Daniel, that no secret is hidden from you?4. With your wisdom and with your understanding did you acquire wealth for yourself, and gather gold and silver in your treasurehouses?5. With your great wisdom in your commerce did you increase your wealth, that your heart became haughty with your wealth?6. Therefore, so said the Lord God: Because you made your heart like the heart of God,

Here in the Jewish bible, the King of Tyre is being asked a series of questions.

Compare with the Xtian version:

Ezekiel 28:1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Ezekiel 28:3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

Ezekiel 28:5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:

Ezekiel 28:6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;

Here, these questions become statements. How is this possible? Especially when one follows the Narrative .

ALTER2EGO -to- ARIK:What you are pointing to as "subtle changes" are nothing more than translator's preferences. There were no question signs in early Hebrew. For that matter, there were no punctuation signs whatsoever in early Hebrew. The appearance of question signs, commas, and periods were a later addition and were inserted to suit the translators. In other words, you pointing out to me that the Jewish Bible uses question signs at Ezekiel 28:1-6, whereas the Judeo-Christian Bible uses periods amounts to "cosmetics." It does not affect one's understanding of what's being said when one reads the entire context (the surrounding words, verses, and chapters that are near where you quoted from). You did not provide context. Instead, you cherry-picked a few verses and ignored everything else (the context). It is the full context that enables one to come to a correct understanding of what the scriptures are saying.

The Masoretes and the Punctuation of Biblical Hebrew

The earliest Hebrew manuscripts, in common with many ancient languages,had no punctuation system (except for starting a new line to indicate a new topic)and Hebrew had no vowels in its alphabet. Neither of these omissions was important as long as Hebrew was a spoken language. Cases where a vowel could readily be mistaken were to some extent catered for at an early period by inserting consonants to help the reader: h for an a sound, y for e or i and w for u (although many ambiguities remained). Full stops were inserted to divide the text into sentences or verses, possibly as early as the second century BCE, and most verses were marked to indicate the most important pause to make when reading aloud. Before the Talmud was completed the rabbis had emended these for consistency and had added other marks to clarify the text. A vertical bar | was written between words when it was felt necessary to clarify where one ended and another began (inter-word spaces were not regularly used), and stress markers were inserted. (Source: The Masoretes and the Punctuation of Biblical Hebrew, Page 4, Paragraph 3)

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

The xtian Version (verse 6 in their version) reads:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

see the subtle changes?

ALTER2EGO to ARIK: As far as the quotation from Isaiah goes, even with the slightly different rendition, the reader reaches the exact same conclusion by paying attention to the context of just the verse on its own. The conclusion is that a child (the Messiah) is born and that he has been assigned the title "Prince of Peace."

Being that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses (a Christian), I attribute all of the titles within that verse to Jesus Christ, while Jews attribute only the title "Prince of Peace" to the Messiah. But even so, the understanding is clear to the me: that the Prince of Peace is a title and the Prince of Peace is the promised Messiah.

When the scriptures you presented above are read within context (paying attention to the surrounding words, verses, and chapters) as opposed to cherry picking verses, as you just did, the reader reaches the same conclusion regardless of which Bible the verses are being read from--whether the Jewish/Tanakh or the Judeo-Christian Bible.

I am not disputing nor would I ever dispute that there were no puntuation marks in the Hebrew. I was not "cherry picking" anything simply showing how when things are translated differently, they have very different meanings. While you are accusing me of "cherry picking" and that i should "put things in context" the Person being spoken of was Hezekiah and it was NOT a Messianic passage at all. And yes you would in fact come to two different conclusions when you take the different passages side by side. You claimed that there was no difference between out Tanach and your "old testament" and that is clearly not the case/

Want to say though that there some rules, and some of them can be explained as we go.

Avrahom was sitting with Hashem after performing bris milah on himself (3rd day actually), yet he ran to serve the melachim who stopped in from the desert.

We learn from this that we offer complete respect to our guests. As well, there is a gemarah in kiddushin that outlines not only the respect due parents, but to Rabbaim and Talmiddei Chachamim as well.

That said, please put your personal feelings aside when referring to our esteemed Rabbaim. We are charged by G-d Himself to obey our religious leaders - I think we can reference many pasukim throughout Tanakh on this.

We are committed to kindness and truth, please try not to take advantage of that.

Most of all, we love debate.

Last edited by Yehudah on Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total

Alter2Ego wrote:I also informed you that the Hebrew/Old Testament portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible was compared against the Dead Sea Scrolls and found to accurately reflect what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I am not sure exactly what you think this proves.

I would like every reader to consider this question: what would YOU do with an old holy book (a Bible, a Prayerbook, etc) that has deteriorated to such a degree that it has become unusable and is now beyond repair? The christians among us may well just put such a book in the garbage, but Jews treat texts containing the Names of God with far greater respect than that; the Tetragrammaton, in particular, must not be erased and should certainly not be thrown out with the trash.

The way that such scrolls/books are disposed of today is not the same as it was in bygone ages. Today such scrolls/books are ceremonially buried - Torah scrolls are accorded their own "graves" complete with headstones, while other scrolls/books are placed in the grave of a highly respected person (it's considered a great honour to be buried together with old scrolls/books that can no longer be used).

But in the past old scrolls/books were not buried; they were "hidden away" (Hebrew גְּנוּזִים g'nuzim) in a repository − often in an annex or the attic of a beit k'neset − where they would not be used but could be preserved in a respectful manner. The same was done with scrolls/books that were found to be defective − that is, found to contain scribal errors that could not be repaired and which rendered them unusable for ceremonial purposes. Such a repository was called a גְּנִיזָה g'nizah, from the verb גנז to hide away (see Wikipedia's article about the famous Cairo G'nizah).

So to summarise: a g'nizah might be expected to contain two different types of documents:

1. documents that were very old (at the time of being stored away) and had deteriorated to such a degree that they were no longer usable; and

2. documents that were not that old, but which had been found to contain scribal errors that could not be rectified and so were deemed unusable for ceremonial readings.Now let's consider the documents found at Ḥirbet Kumr'an. They fall into two main classes − some which were very, very old even before they were consigned to the Kumr'an repository (because they have literally disintegrated into millions of tiny fragments), while others were not so old and have survived intact to a greater or less degree.... but are found in every case to contain divergencies from the Masoretic Text; exactly what one would expect in a g'nizah.

Interestingly, the caves overlooking the Dead Sea are the only such repository in Eretz Yisraél that has ever been found, and there is speculation that their contents represent the g'nizah of the Temple itself. But whatever the site was, if it was a g'nizah we should be very wary of accepting any divergent reading found in its documents: just because they're old doesn't mean they're authoritative, and the very fact that they could have been sent to g'nizah may, in fact, mean the exact opposite.

ALTER2EGO -to- ARIK:You are complaining that exact copies of the Hebrew Scriptures that we have today were protected in caves for centuries! You've got it that bad that you are attempting to discredit what clearly are genuine copies of the ancient Hebrew text?!

The 1st century AD Romans were not exactly fans of either the Jews or the early Christians. Back then, the ancient Israelites/Jews, as a nation, were under Roman domination. How do you know what type of persecution they were under at the time some person or persons decided to hide those ancient scrolls in caves?

The fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls survive all those centuries indicates they were not old enough to require "burial" or ceremonial disposal at the time they were placed inside the caves, which indicates they were being hidden. And they were not hidden in the usual attic or annex where the Roman authorities were certain to look and find them. They were put in a place where nobody was likely to look--inside caves--as opposed to the usual attic or annex. Somebody trying to hide something is not supposed to hide it where it's likely to be found.

Nothing you've said above can change the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated to between the 5th century BCE and the 2nd century BCE. Most important, none of your speculations can change the fact that the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls are identical to the contents of modern Hebrew text that is found in both in the Jewish Tanakh Bible and the Judeo-Christian Bible. You telling me that Jews were so respectful that they would not have placed what clearly are the exact copies of the modern Hebrew text in caves amounts to yours and third parties' speculations aka personal opinions. None of you were there for you to understand why it was done.

Jehovah God saw to it that text was protected from dishonest humans and that the corrupt Roman Catholic Church didn't get their hands on it. This way, we have proof positive that the Hebrew Scriptures we are reading today are exactly as Jehovah inspired the original writings. That assures me that He is an all powerful God who is capable of intervening, when necessary, to protect his inspired writings from Satan's human agents aka false religionists such as the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church dominated the religion scene for centuries with a long list of false religious doctrines.

Yehudah wrote:The last part of your post is fine by you but is a concern to religious Jews. Which 'devine' name are you referring to? The name "jehovah" is a derivation of the tetragramatron, the 4 letter name of G-d that is only supposed to be spoken by the Kohen Gadol during Yom Kippur while performing the avodah. There is no "j" in Judaism, further, while christians are brazen with regards to G-ds' name(s), religious Jews hold It at a higher level and refuse to say or write it. I guess it's because we are held to a higher standard. My personal belief is that it's a lack of respect to G-d, but then, I'm just a stupid Jew who knows less about his faith than most others, especially christians.

ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: If Jews refuse to pronounce the Divine name, that's on them. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say the Divine name is not to be pronounced. Truth be told, the direct opposite is said therein. It specifically says that God wants his name declared throughout the earth. When the Egyptian pharaoh refused to set the enslaved ancient Israelites free, God instructed Moses to tell pharaoh the following, and keep your eyes on the words that are bolded within the quotation.

"But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth."(Exodus 9:16)

Since your questions are directed to yehudah, I would prefer normally to let him answer for himself although The word "Jehovah" is in fact a meaningless word that doesn;t have any meaning whatsoever in Hebrew. Your argument that he uses the term "Jew" spelled with a "J" is apples and oranges. I normally use the Term "Jew" rather than the term "yehuti" or B'nei Yisroel Simply because it would be easier for non Hebrew speaking gentiles to understand, otherwise every thread we would have to stop and explain just what we were talking about.The correct pronunciation of G-d's name is Adonai.Out of respect, I normally just type G-d or "HaShem" ( The Name)Further please respect our rules of the forum, your last statement claiming our rabbis are "sinful" without given any reason for doing so other than because you "think" by speaking disrespectful of them that it strengthens your argument. It is a violation of the Torah to disrespect a Torah scholar so kindly show respect.

ALTER2EGO -to- ARIK:If the Divine name Jehovah is "meaningless" to you and other Jews, that's fine with me. I will continue to honor the name Jehovah until the day of my death.

I believe I already went through that routine about the "J" in my previous post. I made it clear that when a language is translated, the personal names are also translated. The "J" is used in English instead of "Y" in Hebrew when personal names are involved. So although some will pronounce the Divine name as "Yehovah," I will stick with the most commonly accepted English translation of the Divine name, which happens to be Jehovah.

BTW: The word "Adonai" is merely a title that means "Lord". A title is not a personal name. The fact that the title "Lord" can be applied anyone speaks for itself. Almighty God is the only person in the entire universe who is named YHWH/Jehovah, unlike the title Adonai which, as I said, can be applied to anyone.

Introduction

Adonai is the plural of Adon, meaning “Lord, Lord, LORD, master, or owner” (the word Adon derives from a Ugaritic word meaning “lord” or “father”). In the Tanakh, the word Adon can refer to men and angels as well as to the LORD God of Israel (e.g., Exodus 34:23). God is called the “Lord of lords”(Deuteronomy 10:17) and Psalm 8:1 mentions God as “YHVH our Lord.”

The plural form Adonai, like the plural form Elohim, is regularly used with singular verbs and modifiers, so it is best to construe the Name as an “emphatic plural” or “plural of majesty.” When the plural is formed using a singular possessive ending (“my Lords”), it always refers to God, and occurs over 300 times in the Tanakh in this form.

Alter2Ego wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- YEHUDAH: If Jews refuse to pronounce the Divine name, that's on them. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say the Divine name is not to be pronounced. Truth be told, the direct opposite is said therein. It specifically says that God wants his name declared throughout the earth. When the Egyptian pharaoh refused to set the enslaved ancient Israelites free, God instructed Moses to tell pharaoh the following, and keep your eyes on the words that are bolded within the quotation.

"But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth."(Exodus 9:16)

Let me ask you a few questions, Yehudah. And I want you to think logically before you reply.

QUESTION #1 to YEHUDAH: How is Jehovah God's name supposed to be declared in all the earth unless it is audibly uttered around the globe for all to hear it?

QUESTION #2 to YEHUDAH: Why do you suppose Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh/Yehovah had his name written almost 2,000 times in the Hebrew portion of the Bible, if he didn't want his name known and uttered?

QUESTION #3 to YEHUDAH: If Almighty God did not want his personal name uttered, don't you think he would have specifically stated that on even one page of the Bible?

QUESTION #4 to YEHUDAH: Don't you find it strange that there is no such instruction found anywhere in the Bible, which is Jehovah's written instructions to all mankind?

QUESTION #5 to YEHUDAH: Who are you going to obey? Your Creator? or will you continue to put traditions of sinful men/Rabbis ahead of what Jehovah God who says he wants his name declared throughout the earth?

Further please respect our rules of the forum, your last statement claiming our rabbis are "sinful" without given any reason for doing so other than because you "think" by speaking disrespectful of them that it strengthens your argument. It is a violation of the Torah to disrespect a Torah scholar so kindly show respect.

ALTER2EGO -to- ARIK & YEHUDAH:All humans are sinful. That's why we die, because of sin. Are you telling me that Jewish Rabbis are an exception and that they can do no wrong in the sight of men and God?

"In case they sin against you (for there is no man that does not sin), and you have to be incensed at them and abandon them to the enemy, and their captors actually carry them off captive to the land of the enemy distant or nearby;"(1 Kings 8:46)

"For there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin."(Ecclesiastes 7:20)

I mentioned the sin of men/Rabbis only briefly to Yehudah in Question 5 above, and I did it simply to make a point: that just because Jewish Rabbis aka religious leaders say Jehovah God's name should not be pronounced, theirs' are the words of sinful humans and cannot usurp God's instructions at Exodus 9:16--that his name should be declared throughout the earth. In fact, I preceded my list of questions by quoting Exodus 9:16, and I based several of my questions to Yehudah on that one single verse.

In any event, since according to Jewish customs Rabbis are sinless and my saying otherwise is against forum rules, that tells me one thing: I am required to walk on egg shells. I don't walk on egg shells for anyone. Therefore, I will take my leave with all due respect.

Alter2Ego wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- ARIK:You are complaining that exact copies of the Hebrew Scriptures that we have today were protected in caves for centuries! You've got it that bad that you are attempting to discredit what clearly are genuine copies of the ancient Hebrew text?!

You'll be hard pressed to find exact and/or complete copies of Tanakh at that location. They don't exist. As well, they aren't 'genuine', they were re-written by the Essienes - clearly - as was proven by the inclusion of their own texts.

The 1st century AD Romans were not exactly fans of either the Jews or the early Christians. Back then, the ancient Israelites/Jews, as a nation, were under Roman domination. How do you know what type of persecution they were under at the time some person or persons decided to hide those ancient scrolls in caves?

Nobody decided to hide those texts as a result of Roman domination. Those texts were part of a library that the Essienes owned and maintained. They were a sect, just like the Sadduccee's and many other non-mainstream sects.

The fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls survive all those centuries indicates they were not old enough to require "burial" or ceremonial disposal at the time they were placed inside the caves, which indicates they were being hidden. And they were not hidden in the usual attic or annex where the Roman authorities were certain to look and find them. They were put in a place where nobody was likely to look--inside caves--as opposed to the usual attic or annex. Somebody trying to hide something is not supposed to hide it where it's likely to be found.

They lived in the caves - because they were in an arid location - not unlike many other peoples who dug caves in that region to survive the heat. Because we don't know what happened to the Essienes (there is speculation that they disbursed), we can only debate why they were where they were. There is no proof, only conjecture (which is the mainstay of your argument)

Nothing you've said above can change the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated to between the 5th century BCE and the 2nd century BCE. Most important, none of your speculations can change the fact that the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls are identical to the contents of modern Hebrew text that is found in both in the Jewish Tanakh Bible and the Judeo-Christian Bible. You telling me that Jews were so respectful that they would not have placed what clearly are the exact copies of the modern Hebrew text in caves amounts to yours and third parties' speculations aka personal opinions. None of you were there for you to understand why it was done.

Not so fast batman. Some of the scrolls validate Prophets like Daniel which dates back that far. None of the scrolls can be verified as being that old. The contents in their entirety are not exactly what's found in Tanakh or the JC bible. The other fact, one that you and other christians overlook is that we have generations of unbroken tradition. Where does our 'proof' come from? Unbroken chains of transmission, from Rabbi to Student, Father to Son, generation after generation. Period. You don't have that tradition. Your tradition is dictated by elected leaders who changed rule of law and tradition each time one was replaced. That didn't and does not happen with us.

Jehovah God saw to it that text was protected from dishonest humans and that the corrupt Roman Catholic Church didn't get their hands on it. This way, we have proof positive that the Hebrew Scriptures we are reading today are exactly as Jehovah inspired the original writings. That assures me that He is an all powerful God who is capable of intervening, when necessary, to protect his inspired writings from Satan's human agents aka false religionists such as the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church dominated the religion scene for centuries with a long list of false religious doctrines.

First of all, G-d didn't need to protect the scrolls. Why? Because of the generations of unbroken transmission of the Oral and Written Torah - that's why. If G-d wanted to protect sacred writings, why didn't He protect the thousands and thousands of sifrei Torah that were burned by the church from the dispersion until churban Europe? Your story makes no sense.

Alter2Ego wrote:If Jews refuse to pronounce the Divine name, that's on them. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say the Divine name is not to be pronounced. Truth be told, the direct opposite is said therein. It specifically says that God wants his name declared throughout the earth. When the Egyptian pharaoh refused to set the enslaved ancient Israelites free, God instructed Moses to tell pharaoh the following, and keep your eyes on the words that are bolded within the quotation.

Truth be told? Why don't you prove your truth using Torah pasukim? Your opinion holds no weight without it. G-d has many many names of His devine attributes; which we use during prayer, learning, and conversation:HashemRibon Shel OlamZur OlamimG-d..just to name a few

The reasons we don't use the 4 letter Name of G-d is simple, kibud av v'aym. Hashem put the commandment to honor your father and mother on the right side of the luchos. Why? Because the right side holds the main commandments to G-d (while the left side is between man). That's to command you to have honor for your father and mother. Just as you would honor your father by calling him Tateh or Abba, the same goes for Hashem. You would never call your father by his given name, never. Same goes for Hashem.

"But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth."(Exodus 9:16)

Right, to lead the world by our middos. Your ability to take one word out of context is a typical ploy. We don't learn halachah from the Tanakh as I've explained on the other site. Tanakh is where we learn how to treat each other in all aspects of life. Shulchan Aruch and Mishneh Beruah are where we get our halachos from. In this pasuk G-d is telling klal Yisroel to show the world that Hashem is the One G-d. ...not to use His 4 letter Name for the sake of saying it, like you try to do.

On the word 'jehovah':Pretty simple; I could call our people Yehudim, or Klal Yisroel, or Bnei Yisroel... Jew, which is the shortened Englishized version of Yehu (which really doesn't mean anything without it's sister letters) is easier to say. It doesn't represent Hashem Himself. Your version of the tetragramatron is an attempt to say the Name of G-d that we aren't supposed to say. It's brazen and disrespectful, but because it's how you are taught, it is what it is. The world "jehovah" means nothing to us, like jesus, it's just a name.

If the Divine name Jehovah is "meaningless" to you and other Jews, that's fine with me. I will continue to honor the name Jehovah until the day of my death.

Do you honor your birth father by calling him by his first name?

BTW: The word "Adonai" is merely a title that means "Lord". A title is not a personal name. The fact that the title "Lord" can be applied anyone speaks for itself. Almighty God is the only person in the entire universe who is named YHWH/Jehovah, unlike the title Adonai which, as I said, can be applied to anyone.

You are right, and that word is found in many places throughout Tanakh. It doesn't mean G-d, it refers to a man (or in some cases G-d) who is revered and is kingly.

The plural form Adonai, like the plural form Elohim, is regularly used with singular verbs and modifiers, so it is best to construe the Name as an “emphatic plural” or “plural of majesty.” When the plural is formed using a singular possessive ending (“my Lords”), it always refers to God, and occurs over 300 times in the Tanakh in this form.[/b]

You are right and wrong. Elochim is not a plural - you may think it is because of the suffix "IM" which typically means a plural. The fact is, and it is brought down in many many righteous seforim that Elochim is one G-ds' many attributes. In this case, Elochim is an attribute of devine judgement. 99% of where you see the word Elochim, it will be accompanied by Hashem, and will have a note of devine judgement to it - throughout Tanakh.

Alter2Ego wrote:In any event, since according to Jewish customs Rabbis are sinless and my saying otherwise is against forum rules, that tells me one thing: I am required to walk on egg shells. [/color][/size]

There is no such "Jewish custom" that says "all rabbis are sinless" I think you have us mixed up with Catholics.The reason i said anything to you is it seemed you were trying to be disrespectful.